covering t h e i r self-confidencernby rebuilding their infrastructurernand resources.rnThe Irish Times also had harsh wordsrnfor U.S. pohcy in another conflict-riddenrnpart of the world. The leading Dublin dailyrnwarned that, far from bringing peace,rnChnton’s “war on drugs” will drag Colombiarndeeper into bloodshed (August 23):rnIronically, with Clinton keenrnto enhance the image of hisrnpresidency, Plan Colombia mayrnleave a s t a i n on his legacy andrnpresent a poisoned chalice forrnhis successor. It also poses arnproblem for his European a l ­lrni e s who will need to unite ifrnthey are not to be dragged intornthe Colombian quagmire. Farrnfrom helping Colombia torn”strengthen i t s democracy, “rnClinton’s policies have donernthe opposite. The Pentagon hasrnformed an alliance with an armyrnthat refuses to disengage fromrndrug trafficking and from thernnotorious “paramilitaries.”rn”This is not Vietnam; neither is it Yankeernimperialism,” Clinton said of his $1.3rnbillion aid package. “Colombia’s democracyrnis under attack,” he told Colombiansrnin a televised address, assuring them thatrnU.S. aid would be used to promote economicrnand judicial reform and providerntraining and equipment for the country’srnmilitary in its war on drug traffickers. Butrnmost of the aid will go to the Colombianrnmilitary and police, both notorious forrntheir “human rights” abuses. “[0]nly $240rnmillion of the $1.3 billion is actually goingrnto economic and judicial reform,” thernDutch newspaper De Volkskrant—amongrnothers—pointed out on September 1. Thisrnview was shared by the Independentrn(September 3):rnThis most shameless of US presidentsrnwill be out of office inrnfour months, leaving someonerne l s e to sort out the mess.rnOpinion polls have suggestedrnthat the electorate is worriedrnabout drugs, and that the Democrnr a t s are seen as soft on thernissue. Mr. Clinton is doing AlrnGore a favor, at no p o l i t i c a lrncost to himself, while also delrni g h t i n g US arms manufacturersrnwith substantial orders, notrnl e a s t the companies whose helrni c o p t e r s will be part of thernaid package. You do not havernto be a cynic to guess, corrrne c t l y , that they also happenrnto be important donors . . . tornthe Democratic Party.rnEl Coireo, a Spanish daily, concludedrn(September 1) that Colombia differs fromrnVietnam in this respect: The goal is not tornliberate a people from the thieat of communism,rnbut “to liberate the North Americanrndrug market from its natural sources.”rnThis is precisely why the war on drugs inrnColombia will fail, and why Clinton is involvedrnin “one of the most immoral Americanrninterventions of modem times,” as SimonrnJenkins wrote in the Times of Londonrn(September 1). Jenkins argues that therndrug trade should be legalized so thatrncountries can regulate and tax it. Withoutrnsuch reform,rngangsters will stay rich, thernpoor will stay poor, the addictsrn[will] stay addicted . . .rn[and] half of Latin Americarnwill be p o l i t i c a l l y enslaved tornthe new American imperialism.rnThe other half of Latin America mayrntake revenge by enslaving the UnitedrnStates. “North America Doesn’t NeedrnBorders,” the Wall Street Journal proclaimedrnon August 29, while a week earlierrnthe Financial Times opined thatrnThe best way to deal with [ i l ­legalrnimmigration] is to l e ­gitimizernlabor flows and ensurernthat Mexican workers inrnthe US enjoy the same legalrnr i g h t s and protections asrnt h e i r local counterparts.rnThe business community welcomed therndemand of Mexico’s new president, VicenternFox, that the United States allowrnmillions more Mexicans to immigrate andrnwork here. His desire is natural: Both Foxrnand his defeated PRI predecessors belongrnto Mexico’s white power elite and, thus,rnwish to unload many of their desolate andrnuneducated mestizos and Indians on thernUnited States. The short-term result willrnbe the lowering of America’s material,rncultural, and civilizational standards. Butrnthe ultimate price of unlimited immigrationrnis the destruction of the Westernrnworld. On September 3, the Guardian—arnleft-liberal paper if there ever was one—rnpublished a special report on demographicrntrends entiried “The last days of a whiternworld.” Analyzing demographic trends inrnthe United States, the article provides arnglimpse of what is in store for the West:rnThe shifting sands of the USrnr e f l e c t wider-and highly controversialrn—changes elsewherernin the world. It is an area inrnwhich few demographers dare torntread for fear of being accusedrnof racism.rnAccording to the Guardian, 98 percentrnof the growth in the world’s population byrn2025 will take place in the Third World. Arncentui’y ago, Europe had a quarter of thernworld’s population, and three times that ofrnAfrica; by 2050, it will account for justrnseven percent of the world’s population—rnand have only a third that of Africa:rnThe ageing and declining populationsrnof predominantly whiternnations have prompted c a l l srnfor more immigration: EdmundrnStoiber, the premier ofrnBavaria in southern Germany,rncalled on Germans to have morernbabies as an a l t e r n a t i v e tornmore immigrants. . . . [A] demographer,rnwho d i d n ‘ t want tornbe named for fear of beingrncalled r a c i s t , said: ” I t ‘ s arnmatter of pure arithmeticrnthat, if nothing else happens,rnnon-Europeans will become arnmajority and whites a minorityrnin the UK. That would probablyrnbe the f i r s t time an indigenousrnpopulation has voluntarily becom.rne a minority in i t s h i s t o r icrnhomeland.”rnThe paper quotes British National Partyrnchairman Nick Griffin, who sees a majorrncause for alarm in this trend:rnEvery people under the sun haverna right to their place underrnthe sun, and the right to survive.rnIf people predicted thatrnIndians would be a minority inrnIndia in 2100, everyone wouldrnbe calling i t genocide.rnSuch views, of course, remain unfit tornprint in America’s “mainstream” press. Atrnthis rate, we’ll soon wish we could tradernplaces with spotted owls and spermrnwhales.rnNOVEMBER 2000/25rnrnrn